Asashoryu robbed?

[Ryukaze]

I must say after viewing yesterdays bout it hardly seems that one could make the call in favor of Kokkai. Viewing the replay it appears that the two simultaneously (Asashoryu hitting the ground and Kokkai's foot going down and out) went out of bounds. From hearing the gyojis call however because Kokkai's foot still remained on the dohyo he was declared the winner (inspite of his left foot clearly going out and over the edge of the dohyo at the same time Asashoryu touched down), just didnt seem like the right call to me however, should have been a "Tori-naoshi". (Nodding yes...) -

p.s. If you look carefully you can even see "Shoryu" pulling his arms up to laten his fall till his chest is the first thing to touch, really an amazing athlete if u ask me.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Ryukaze

[Kashunowaka]

When Asashoryu touched down with his body on the dohyo, Kokkai was still pivoting on his right foot and hadn't touched the ground outside the dohyo. I think the reversal was correct.

[Ryukaze]

When Asashoryu touched down with his body on the dohyo, Kokkai was still pivoting on his right foot and hadn't touched the ground outside the dohyo. I think the reversal was correct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was evident BUT doesnt having your foot clearing the edge of the dohyo equivocate to it being out? Or is it a kyokai rule where a rikishi's foot if he can step over and off the dohyo is not counted out untill he touches the actual ground outside the dohyo???? (which seems quite silly). Also the judge when announcing the call made the point of saying that the call was reversed because kokkai's "right" foot was still on the dohyo not because his "left" foot hadn't touched the ground yet. Can anyone shed some more light on this ...(Nodding yes...)

Edited July 20, 2005 by Ryukaze

[madorosumaru]

When Asashoryu touched down with his body on the dohyo, Kokkai was still pivoting on his right foot and hadn't touched the ground outside the dohyo. I think the reversal was correct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was evident BUT doesnt having your foot clearing the edge of the dohyo equivocate to it being out? Or is it a kyokai rule where a rikishi's foot if he can step over and off the dohyo is not counted out untill he touches the actual ground outside the dohyo???? (which seems quite silly). Also the judge when announcing the call made the point of saying that the call was reversed because kokkai's "right" foot was still on the dohyo not because his "left" foot hadn't touched the ground yet. Can anyone shed some more light on this ...(Nodding yes...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look at the photo above, you can see that it is once again a matter of "de facto" or "de jure." The same question came up with the "shinitai" controversy that we all remember too well. The judges are too often arbitrary in making their decisions in these matters because there are no clearly defined guidelines for these situations.

Yes, Kokkai's right foot is still in the dohyo while his entire body is outside. His left foot is dangling in the air only because there is the big drop from the raised dohyo. So with a strict interpretation ("de jure"), Kokkai had not touched town outside of the ring. But "de facto," his body was 90+% outside of the dohyo and not in position to continue with the bout. Wasn't that the argument by people who maintained Ryu had a "shinitai" position against Kotonowaka?

So, was Asashoryu robbed? Were the judges arbitrary? Yes on both counts. Just as Kotonowaka was robbed in the earlier match. There was a major controversy at that time with all the pundits clamoring for clearer guidelines for shinitai etc. Still, nothing from the Kyokai.

I wouldn't go as far as calling it a "conspiracy," but Ryu's loss has put renewed life in a most lackluster, disappointing, pathetic-on-all-fronts basho. Now, there is something to write about and all the hoopla may attract a few more thousand to the last four days of the tournament.

[Kashunowaka]

18. A competitor will be judged to have lost if one of the following circumstances applies:

1) he touches the surface outside the dohy

[Kintamayama]

I say if it's that close, do a torinaoshi. Every time. So there may be fewer arguments, maybe..

On second thought, the guy who feels "robbed" will feel "robbed" in any case..

[Hakuyobaku]

Yes, Kokkai's right foot is still in the dohyo while his entire body is outside. His left foot is dangling in the air only because there is the big drop from the raised dohyo. So with a strict interpretation ("de jure"), Kokkai had not touched town outside of the ring. But "de facto," his body was 90+% outside of the dohyo and not in position to continue with the bout. Wasn't that the argument by people who maintained Ryu had a "shinitai" position against Kotonowaka?

Well, yes, Kokkais body is out at that angle, but Asashoryu went down a bit earlier. on the picture below you can see it a bit better i think. Anyway. Close enough.

[Fujisan]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It looks to me like Asashoryu is having a good look to see if Kokkai stepped out aswell-Or is it just me?

Edited July 20, 2005 by Fujisan

[madorosumaru]

I still say Kokkai won it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As though anyone cares.

[madorosumaru]

. . . if it's that close, do a torinaoshi.

Kinta is correct. All Asashoryu wanted was a torinaoshi.

"That's ridiculous! At worst it should be do-tai [and a cause for a rematch]. I was looking at his feet and fell on my chin without bracing myself with my arms."

[Kashunowaka]

I still say Kokkai won it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As though anyone cares.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that no one cares about my opinion?

[madorosumaru]

I still say Kokkai won it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As though anyone cares.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that no one cares about my opinion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, you got it. At least I don't.

If you had said, "I think Kokkai won," that would be fine. Instead, you make it sound as though you don't care what anyone else has to say--you still insist on your opinion. Well, you can have your opinion for whatever its worth.

[Kashunowaka]

If you had said, "I think Kokkai won," that would be fine. Instead, you make it sound as though you don't care what anyone else has to say--you still insist on your opinion.  Well, you can have your opinion for whatever its worth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As can you.

I don't know what I have done to evoke such hostility from you. I do care what others think, and I thought what I wrote was equivalent to "I think Kokkai won". Perhaps I accidentally chose a bad wording - English is not my first language.

After seeing the match and the slow motion replay, I wasn't sure at all what the rules really said. So I looked it up. There is some room for interpretation of the kabaite part, so I am not saying that my interpretation is right.

[Ryukaze]

Hey thanks for all the insight brethren. I gotta go with "Kinta-san" on this though if its that close (and it was..) just do a tori-naoshi, (unless the kyokai is giving kokkai the benefit of the doubt to make the basho interesting which by all means it could use but still....). Nonetheless I am always of the impression that if a match is too close to tell the winner by your naked eye then it should just be a tori-naoshi.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Ryukaze

[Fujisan]

If you had said, "I think Kokkai won," that would be fine. Instead, you make it sound as though you don't care what anyone else has to say--you still insist on your opinion.

[madorosumaru]

I don't know what I have done to evoke such hostility from you. I do care what others think, and I thought what I wrote was equivalent to "I think Kokkai won". Perhaps I accidentally chose a bad wording - English is not my first language.

After seeing the match and the slow motion replay, I wasn't sure at all what the rules really said. So I looked it up. There is some room for interpretation of the kabaite part, so I am not saying that my interpretation is right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, Kashu. I may have overeacted. I do understand that English is not your first language and you deserve plaudits for your linguistic ability.

The whole point of my post was to show out that there is too much "room for interpretation," thereby causing injustice far too frequently. Asashoryu benefited last time, but got the short end this time. In the Kotonowaka match, they called a torinaoshi; not this time. The judges are so arbitrary in their decisions. In this case, they overturned the judgment of Kimura Shonosuke, the highest ranking gyogi, who has officiated literally hundreds of close matches. To embarrass him in front of the world ought to require more than some questionable "interpretation call."

I got a little riled because there has been so much "me, me, me" in the forum lately. This is just a fan forum. To paraphrase Rick from Casablanca, "All our rants and raves, opinions and beliefs do not amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."

Finally, to cite Tomozuna Oyakata, "As far as I'm concerned, it's all water under the bridge."

Edited July 20, 2005 by madorosumaru

[Kashunowaka]

The whole point of my post was to point out that there is too much "room for interpretation," thereby causing injustice far too frequently.  Asashoryu benefited last time, but got the short end this time.  In the Kotonowaka match, they called a torinaoshi; not this time.  The judges are so arbitrary in their decisions. In this case, they overturned the judgment of Kimura Shonosuke, the highest ranking gyogi, who has officiated literally hundreds of close matches. To embarrass him in front of the world ought to require more than some questionable "interpretation call."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that it should be more important to make a correct call than to save the gyoji's face.

I am trying to understand your reasoning. Asashoryu hit the ground first, so why should he be declared the winner? Do you think that kabaite *should* be applied here?

[madorosumaru]

I think that it should be more important to make a correct call than to save the gyoji's face.

I am trying to understand your reasoning. Asashoryu hit the ground first, so why should he be declared the winner? Do you think that kabaite *should* be applied here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not saying that they should have saved the gyogi's face. Kimura Shonosuke is their best, most experienced, gyogi and this is not a case where his view was blocked or whatever. He looked at a very close match (bimyo was a word used yesterday for another bout) and used his considered judgment to render a decision. To overturn such a decision with an questionable "interpretation call" was what I was talking about.

Before I answer your question, I'll once again say that all our rants and raves are not worth a hill of being in the larger scheme of things. So for whatever it's worth:

In addition to the concept of "kabaite" which doesn't apply here, there is also the murky notion of "shinitai"--dead body. That's what happens when a rikishi, though not yet touching the ground, is in process of doing so--ergo "dead body." He has no chance of recovery to resume fighting again. Very often, this happens, for example, at dohyo edge when there is an uccahri type move when bodies are flying in the air into the chasm of dohyo-shita. When a rikishi is determined to be in "shinitai' position, the opponent can conceivably step out or even touch the ground although the "shinitai" rikishi hasn't "de jure" touched the surface himself. Now, this condition is rather common and over the years, gyogi and shinpan have used the concept to determine many outcomes. The problem is that, unlike the indisputable touch of ground or step out of the ring, "shinitai" can be quite subjective and there are no definitive guidelines.

Many, forum members or otherwise, used the argument of "shinitai" (in addition to "kabaite") in the Ryu-Koto match. They said, although Ryu techically hasn't touched the dohyo, he was, for practical purposes, a goner--just hanging on. Well, Kokkai was just as much a goner in the bout yesterday.

Another concept close to that (and I don't know the precise term for it) is what happens during a tsuridashi. In this case, the rikishi on offense can step out of the ring while still carrying his opponent whose legs are dangling and fluttering in the air. It would not be called an "isamiashi" under those circumstances. I am sure you have seen examples of that move.

So despite the "de jure" rules, there are situations when a rikishi is determined to have lost even if he doesn't touch the ground or step out of the ring first.

My contention (take it for whatever its worth) is that Kokkai was out of the ring, with the exception of his right foot) and in no position to continue the fight. That "can" (Note: can) be interpreted as "shinitai."

Again, it's a gray area. And when it's that unclear or "bimyo," do what our resident sage Kunta Kinta suggests--torinaoshi.

Well, there's a bowlful of beans for you. Be careful of the resultant gas.

Edited July 20, 2005 by madorosumaru

[Asashosakari]

My contention (take it for whatever its worth) is that Kokkai was out of the ring, with the exception of his right foot) and in no position to continue the fight. That "can" (Note: can) be interpreted as "shinitai."

I can't say I understand your reasoning here, either. Are you implying that Asashoryu was still in a position to continue to fight? I don't see how shinitai can possibly apply when both competitors have lost control over their body like they did there.

[Hakuyobaku]

Many, forum members or otherwise, used the argument of "shinitai" (in addition to "kabaite") in the Ryu-Koto match. They said, although Ryu techically hasn't touched the dohyo, he was, for practical purposes, a goner--just hanging on. Well, Kokkai was just as much a goner in the bout yesterday.

If anyone was "shinitai" there that's , i think, Asashoryu. he was just trying to put off the inevitable contact with the ground as far as he could (which was what Kokkai was doing too, FWIW) But anyway the fact is that he still touched down first.

Both rikishi were trying to avoid that first touch and Kokkai seemed to get the upper hand on that (which is strange sui generis considering his clumsy moves

together with the yokozuna's insane ability to make wins out of losses)

Another concept close to that (and I don't know the precise term for it) is what happens during a tsuridashi. In this case, the rikishi on offense can step out of the ring while still carrying his opponent whose legs are dangling and fluttering in the air. It would not be called an "isamiashi" under those circumstances. I am sure you have seen examples of that move.

3) if during a bout he is lifted by his opponent higher than the hips and the further action is judged to be dangerous;

There.

I forgot some of my other rants on the way tho :)

[madorosumaru]

My contention (take it for whatever its worth) is that Kokkai was out of the ring, with the exception of his right foot) and in no position to continue the fight. That "can" (Note: can) be interpreted as "shinitai."

I can't say I understand your reasoning here, either. Are you implying that Asashoryu was still in a position to continue to fight? I don't see how shinitai can possibly apply when both competitors have lost control over their body like they did there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a matter of which came first--Asashoryu falling or Kokkai getting into a "shinitai" position. And it was too close to call with too much left to "interpretation." That's why a torianoshi.

That was Asashoryu's gripe--". . . at worst, it was do-tai."

Look, I'm coming up with another point of view. These are the possible concepts that can be used for "interpretation." As I said, take it or leave it.

[Asashosakari]

Look, I'm coming up with another point of view.  These are the possible concepts that can be used for "interpretation."  As I said, take it or leave it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I appreciate your input. But for some reason you seem to take this rather personally and get all flustered when somebody else thinks that your explanations are on shaky ground. Relax.

[madorosumaru]

「おかしいよ。（黒海の足が出るのが）見えていたんだ。死に体ってどういうことを言うんだよ。オレは手をつかず、一生懸命アゴから落ちているんだ。悪くても取り直しだよ」

Asashoryu himself brought up "shinitai." ". . .[if you don't call that shinitai], what the heck would you call one? . . ."

It was close; it was controversial. It should have been a torinaoshi.

The concept of "shinitai" is undefined so it's murky at best.

Edited July 21, 2005 by madorosumaru

[Kasugaran]

If you had said, "I think Kokkai won," that would be fine. Instead, you make it sound as though you don't care what anyone else has to say--you still insist on your opinion.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Kasugaran

[Ryukaze]

But this is not true. A Rikishi loses, according to Nihon Sumou Kyoukai rules, when he touches outside. Even if he sinks below the level of the Dohyou, if he does not touch down, he hasn't lost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow what a great thread, who started this anyway? (lol j/k).....I guess "Shiroikuma's" providing us with the "official" kyokai rules pretty much settles the issue. As by just watching the replay its fairly clear shoryu does go down before kokkai's left foot lands on the ground OUTSIDE the dohyo (but not before he broke the plane however), so I suppose there can be no further argument. I still don't agree with this rule however lol if your opponent hits the ground at the same time your foot breaks the plane of the outside of the dohyo I think thats should definately call for a tori-naoshi. Either way Shiroi-kuma thanks for informing me bro. -

Edited July 21, 2005 by Ryukaze